1. The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, „the C.P.C.‟), seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1345 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Eluru, for trial and disposal.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 25.02.2015 at Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District, as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Eluru in her parent‟s house along with her three minor children.
ii. The petitioner pleaded that she lodged a complaint against the respondent and it was registered as Crime No.207 of 2025 under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner along with her three children filed F.C.O.P.No.211 of 2025, before the learned VII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Eluru, under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7 of Family Court Act, seeking maintenance and the same is pending adjudication.
iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, filed F.C.O.P.No.1345 of 2025, on the file of learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking dissolution of marriage, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.
3. Heard Sri G.V. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Karthik Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the material allegations raised in the affidavit of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there are no merits in the transfer petition and pleaded that the transfer petition may be dismissed.
5. Perused the material available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner is staying at Eluru along with her three children and the children are prosecuting their studies at Eluru. The petitioner also filed study certificates issued by the school authorities to that extent. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the children are staying at Eluru with the mother/ petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner has filed F.C.O.P.No.211 of 2025, before the learned VII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Eluru for seeking maintenance from the respondent and the said case has been listed on 21.05.2026.
7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA((2000) 10 SCC 304), held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.”
8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha(2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627)held as follows:
“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”
9. On considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered view that, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience caused to the husband. Furthermore, the petitioner/ wife has been residing at Eluru along with three children and the said children are prosecuting studies at Eluru with petitioner and that it is very difficult for petitioner/ wife to appear before the Family Court at Vijayawada on each and every adjournment and that it is a fit case to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1345 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Eluru.
10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P.No.1345 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Family Court, Eluru. The learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, shall transmit the entire case record in F.C.O.P.No.1345 of 2025, to the file of the learned Family Court, Eluru, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Eluru, at 10:30 a.m. on 21.05.2026. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is hereby instructed to transmit the copy of this order to the concerned Courts forthwith.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim Order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.




